WIFE killer Joe O’Reilly yesterday launched a fresh bid for freedom claiming a trial bungle could set him free.

The murderer’s lawyers started the legal fight on the basis the book of evidence was left in the jury room – almost collapsing the trial in 2007.

The alleged mix-up came to light when a member of the jury asked a court official whether the prosecution papers – which they are not permitted to see – should have been there.

Trial judge Mr Justice Barry White explained how serious the issue was and only agreed to proceed after each jury member denied reading the documents. O’Reilly’s legal team has now been ordered to produce evidence to back the claim.

The 6ft 5in brute is hoping to have his conviction for murdering his wife Rachel at the family home in 2004 declared a miscarriage of justice.

The killer has hired high-profile lawyer Frank Buttimer, who defended child killer Wayne O’Donoghue, to lead his fresh bid.

O’Reilly was in court yesterday to lodge the application under Section 2 of the Criminal Procedure Act 1993.

The 40-year-old was found guilty and sentenced to life for the murder of his wife Rachel at their home in The Naul, Co Dublin, in July 2007. The mum-of-two’s badly beaten body was found in her bedroom on October 4, 2004. Gardai believe O’Reilly beat her to death with a dumbbell.

He had a nine-month affair with advertising executive Nikki Pelley before the murder and the 42-year-old still visits him in jail, even though he won’t be freed until 2024.

During yesterday’s hearing at the Criminal Courts of Justice, Judge Adrian Hardiman said O’Reilly needs to provide evidence about the jury seeing the book of evidence.

His lawyers have also claimed meetings were held as the trial took place.

Dressed in a black suit, O’Reilly looked at ease as he was led into court 22 almost 30 minutes late due to a delay in transfer from the Midlands Prison in Co Laois. Judge Hardiman said the case had “fallen into some vagueness from a procedural point of view” and the court had directed the attendance of O’Reilly so the case “might be given some shape”.

He also said a written sworn statement setting out the evidence to be produced was required. O’Reilly’s barrister Ronan Munro said it would be beneficial for both parties to review the file.

The judge warned there would be serious questions about whether the case could go ahead if a sworn statement wasn’t filed and added the appeal could not “sit on the list in a strange way” and must be dealt with quickly, despite O’Reilly’s right to bring an application.

Mr Munro said he was in “complete agreement” but wasn’t in a position to say what was to be done “one way or another”.

Mr Justice Hardiman put the case back until March 7 and said while the court would not propose an affidavit must be ready, “some indication” of how the case was to proceed must be given if it is not.

This is not the first time O’Reilly has appealed his case.

He lost an appeal against conviction in 2009 while he failed in a bid to have it quashed last August after arguing his detention in the Midlands Prison was unlawful.

A few months later he was granted legal aid in his bid to have his conviction declared a miscarriage of justice after the State lodged no objection in November.

But lawyers for the DPP told the court they would strongly oppose any application for bail by O’Reilly.

Section 2 of the Criminal Procedure Act 1993 says a person who remains convicted after appeal may apply to have their conviction quashed based on new or newly-discovered facts that show a miscarriage of justice.